Covered or Removed?

[Van]

1 Sameul 3:14 NASB
“Therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli that the wrongdoing of Eli’s house shall never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.”

Ever wonder why the "atonement" of the Old Covenant did not make the person perfect, holy and blameless, but only provided a merciful covering that temporarily blocked punishment for sin?

If we look at the Old Testament Hebrew word, Kapar (H3722) we see its basic meaning is a covering, such as putting pitch on a boat to block water entry. Yes, while the vast majority of translation choices for the word is "make atonement," the word is also translated as purged, removed, forgiven, expiated, and reconciled, making the action seem like the New Covenant washing of regeneration. But these translation choices are mistranslations and simply create confusion in an important gospel doctrine.

If the full consequence of sin had been removed by the "atonement" of the Old Covenant, the OT Saints would not have had to wait in Abraham's bosom until they could be made perfect by the blood of the Lamb.

If the word "reconciliation" is reserved to being united with Christ under the New Covenant, what word or phrase might be used to address the Old Testament usage of "Kapar?"

How about "provide mercy" which turns aside the consequence of sin, such that reconciliation under the New Covenant remains viable?

In the above verse the house of Eli shall never be provided mercy by sacrifice of offering.

Here are a few other verses (kapar appears about 100 times in the OT) where a better translation might reduce confusion with reconciliation under the New Covenant.

Lev 8:15 NASB
And he slew it; and Moses took the blood, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about with his finger, and purified the altar, and poured the blood at the bottom of the altar, and sanctified it, to make reconciliation upon it.

Here "to provide mercy" (or merciful placation?)

Deuteronomy 21:8 NKJV
‘Provide atonement, O LORD, for Your people Israel, whom You have redeemed, and do not lay innocent blood to the charge of Your people Israel.’ And atonement shall be provided on their behalf for the blood.

Here "Provide mercy" and "and provide mercy?"

Proverbs 16:14 KJV
The wrath of a king is as messengers of death: but a wise man will pacify it.

Here "will obtain mercy?"

 

[Van]

Psalm 79:9 NASB
Help us, God of our salvation, for the glory of Your name;
And save us and forgive our sins for the sake of Your name.

Here deliver us and provide a merciful covering for our sins... removes the confusing implication.

Proverbs 16:6 ESV
By steadfast love and faithfulness iniquity is atoned for,
and by the fear of the LORD one turns away from evil.

Here "is provided a merciful covering?"

Perhaps the best translation choice is "provide a merciful covering" for the majority of OT usages of "Kapar?"

Next is a difficult verse where the meaning of "kapar" is used not to provide mercy, but to cover over mercy and provide justice!

Isaiah 28:18 ESV
Then your covenant with death will be annulled,
and your agreement with Sheol will not stand;
when the overwhelming scourge passes through,
you will be beaten down by it.

Here your covenant with death will be covered over,

 

[JonC]

Another way of putting it - in His forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished.

 

[Ben1445]

Psalms 119:29
Remove from me the way of lying:
and grant me thy law graciously.

Psalms 103:12
As far as the east is from the west,
so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.

Zechariah 3:9
For behold the stone that I have laid before Joshua;
upon one stone shall be seven eyes:
behold, I will engrave the graving thereof, saith the LORD of hosts,
and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day.

 

[Van]

Psalms 119:29
Remove from me the way of lying:
and grant me thy law graciously.

Psalms 103:12
As far as the east is from the west,
so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.

Zechariah 3:9
For behold the stone that I have laid before Joshua;
upon one stone shall be seven eyes:
behold, I will engrave the graving thereof, saith the LORD of hosts,
and I will remove the iniquity of that land in one day.

What could be the unstated purpose of this post. Apparently, and I am definitely guessing because the poster could not or world not take a stand, the purpose was to suggest rather than just cover the sins of OT saints, scripture teaches God removes the sins, which would conflict with my Opening post.

However, the Hebrew words translated as "remove" do not refer to taking the penalty for the sins away.

In Psalms 119:29, the Hebrew word is "Sor" (H5493) refers to the action of turning something aside, so turn me from the way of lying.

In Psalms 103:12, the Hebrew word is "Rahaq" (H7368), refers to lessening the hazard by creating distance.

In Zechariah 3:9, the Hebrew word is "Mos" (H4185), does indeed refer to taking away the iniquity. Many believe this verse refers to the foundation stone, Christ, who would on that day of His death, provide for the removal of iniquity for all that believe.

Thus the above three verses do not conflict or confuse the clarity of doctrine presented in the OP.

 

[Van]

Another way of putting it - in His forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished.

Romans 3:25-26 addresses your truth.

 

[Ben1445]

What could be the unstated purpose of this post.

The verses were the point. You read them, explained them and then said that they did not contradict you.

Apparently, and I am definitely guessing because the poster could not or world not take a stand,

The verses were written in English.

the purpose was to suggest rather than just cover the sins of OT saints, scripture teaches God removes the sins, which would conflict with my Opening post.

You say that the removal of sins would conflict with the OP.

However, the Hebrew words translated as "remove" do not refer to taking the penalty for the sins away.

The removal of sin removes the penalty. You strain at gnats. No one gets justly punished for something that is not credited as being done by them. That is why we are able to stand without fear of penalty. Our sins are removed from us.

In Psalms 119:29, the Hebrew word is "Sor" (H5493) refers to the action of turning something aside, so turn me from the way of lying.

I also recognize that this is someone asking to be removed. Yes I know what it means. Don’t overthink it. If you aren’t in the way of lying then you are not guilty of it. If you’re not guilty of it, you don’t have that sin laid to your claim. And apparently the important part for you is the penalty. No sin, no penalty. The real issue is the sin. Adam wasn’t removed from the garden because he had a penalty. He was removed because he had sin. Take care of the sin and you have no more penalty, problem, or guilt.

In Psalms 103:12, the Hebrew word is "Rahaq" (H7368), refers to lessening the hazard by creating distance.

You say removing ourselves away from the hazard like if we can be distanced enough from sin God won’t know it was ours. It just sounds like a child covering their eyes and considering themselves hidden.
The reality is that God said He would do the removal. It is effective enough for God to remove them. You belittle the actions of God as if they are not enough to make us perfect.

In Zechariah 3:9, the Hebrew word is "Mos" (H4185), does indeed refer to taking away the iniquity. Many believe this verse refers to the foundation stone, Christ, who would on that day of His death, provide for the removal of iniquity for all that believe.

I’m glad you can see one of them, without obfuscation.

Thus the above three verses do not conflict or confuse the clarity of doctrine presented in the OP.

I actually didn’t find clarity in the doctrine presented. I assumed by the title that you meant that sins were covered (since that is all you talked about) and not removed, since you phrased it as an “or” question.

All I did was find sin that was removed or requested removed (whether by moving the person or the sin makes little difference for the discussion).
I quoted the verses for you because I wasn’t sure if I knew what you were talking about. I figured you would answer the confusion if I quoted some removals to you.
As best I can figure, you are not as concerned with the sin as you are the penalty.
If that is the case, you have the cart before the horse.

 

[Van]

The verses were the point. You read them, explained them and then said that they did not contradict you.

The verses were written in English.

You say that the removal of sins would conflict with the OP.


The removal of sin removes the penalty. You strain at gnats. No one gets justly punished for something that is not credited as being done by them. That is why we are able to stand without fear of penalty. Our sins are removed from us.


I also recognize that this is someone asking to be removed. Yes I know what it means. Don’t overthink it. If you aren’t in the way of lying then you are not guilty of it. If you’re not guilty of it, you don’t have that sin laid to your claim. And apparently the important part for you is the penalty. No sin, no penalty. The real issue is the sin. Adam wasn’t removed from the garden because he had a penalty. He was removed because he had sin. Take care of the sin and you have no more penalty, problem, or guilt.

You say removing ourselves away from the hazard like if we can be distanced enough from sin God won’t know it was ours. It just sounds like a child covering their eyes and considering themselves hidden.
The reality is that God said He would do the removal. It is effective enough for God to remove them. You belittle the actions of God as if they are not enough to make us perfect.

I’m glad you can see one of them, without obfuscation.

I actually didn’t find clarity in the doctrine presented. I assumed by the title that you meant that sins were covered (since that is all you talked about) and not removed, since you phrased it as an “or” question.

All I did was find sin that was removed or requested removed (whether by moving the person or the sin makes little difference for the discussion).
I quoted the verses for you because I wasn’t sure if I knew what you were talking about. I figured you would answer the confusion if I quoted some removals to you.
As best I can figure, you are not as concerned with the sin as you are the penalty.
If that is the case, you have the cart before the horse.

Yet another long post, with you, you, you cluttering any actual content.

If a person turns from lying, that does not remove the stored wrath for past lies.
If a person puts distance between himself and the consequence of his sin, that does not remove the consequence from God's account book
If an OT reference to the removal under the NT is referenced, that applies to the New Covenant, not the old.

 

[Van]

If we look at the Old Testament Hebrew word, Kapar (H3722) we see its basic meaning is a covering, such as putting pitch on a boat to block water entry. Yes, while the vast majority of translation choices for the word is "make atonement," the word is also translated as purged, removed, forgiven, expiated, and reconciled, making the action seem like the New Covenant washing of regeneration. But these translation choices are mistranslations and simply create confusion in an important gospel doctrine.

Rather than translate "Kapar" as "make atonement" or removed, or forgiven, or reconciled, or purged, or expiated, I think the best translation choice in almost every case is a version of "provide a merciful covering."

Psalm 79:9 is a case on point:

KJV
Help us, O God of our salvation, for the glory of thy name: and deliver us, and purge away our sins, for thy name's sake.
NASB
Help us, God of our salvation, for the glory of Your name;
And save us and forgive our sins for the sake of Your name.​

As you can see, "and provide a merciful covering for our sins" actually makes the Old Covenant remediation clearly different from the New Covenant removal.

 

[Dave G]

Washed away and forgotten.

 

[Van]

Washed away and forgotten.

What could be the unstated purpose of this post. Apparently, and I am definitely guessing because the poster could not or world not take a stand, the purpose was to suggest rather than just cover the sins of OT saints, scripture teaches God washed away and forgot the sins, which would conflict with my Opening post.

"Washed away" is used to refer to the removal of sin under the New Covenant, see Acts 22:16.

And of course Jeremiah 31:34 refers to the New Covenant.

The meaning of Kapar is to cover over, so when used to refer to covering sins, provide a merciful covering seems most accurate.

 

[Ben1445]

Yet another long post, with you, you, you cluttering any actual content.

Yet another attack addressing me, me, me, instead of the post.

If a person turns from lying, that does not remove the stored wrath for past lies

I acknowledge that. I did already but not to your satisfaction apparently.

If a person puts distance between himself and the consequence of his sin, that does not remove the consequence from God's account book

God puts the distance in. That makes it sufficient. Also the distance is immeasurable. That is the point.

If an OT reference to the removal under the NT is referenced, that applies to the New Covenant, not the old.

Not surprising. Both covenants were made with His people. That is the common denominator. The old covenant is replaced because it is not enough. I didn’t think anyone was defending the sufficiency of the old covenant.

So, Are you talking about covered or removed sin, covered or removed penalties, or covered or removed covenants?
I’m struggling to understand what your point is. You keep switching the discussion. The first time could have been me assuming you meant sin when you meant penalties, but now we are discussing covenants.
Could you please let me know what we are discussing? It would help me out a lot.

 

[Van]

Yet another attack addressing me, me, me, instead of the post.

I acknowledge that. I did already but not to your satisfaction apparently.

God puts the distance in. That makes it sufficient. Also the distance is immeasurable. That is the point.

Not surprising. Both covenants were made with His people. That is the common denominator. The old covenant is replaced because it is not enough. I didn’t think anyone was defending the sufficiency of the old covenant.

So, Are you talking about covered or removed sin, covered or removed penalties, or covered or removed covenants?
I’m struggling to understand what your point is. You keep switching the discussion. The first time could have been me assuming you meant sin when you meant penalties, but now we are discussing covenants.
Could you please let me know what we are discussing? It would help me out a lot.

Yes, as a rule, those that post "taint so" do not even understand the view that seems to differ from their view.

I said putting distance does not remove the sin penalty from God's books, and you did not say putting distance does remove the sin penalty from God's books. It is hard to make progress to a common understand unless the issue that divides is actually addressed. But your point is valid, that it was God who put the distance, and that distance was indeed sufficient for His purpose of providing a merciful covering to temporarily delay His punishment for the sin.

I was addressing one of the reasons for the insufficiency of the Old Covenant, covered but not removed.

Yes, I am talking about the sin penalty, God's action, not ours. The covering delayed holding the person accountable for the wrath he or she had stored up, but did not remove the penalty.

Here is what I said, "Ever wonder why the "atonement" of the Old Covenant did not make the person perfect, holy and blameless, but only provided a merciful covering that temporarily blocked punishment for sin?"

 

[Ben1445]

Yes, as a rule, those that post "taint so" do not even understand the view that seems to differ from their view.

Yet another post attacking me instead of the subject matter!!
Sound familiar?

I said putting distance does not remove the sin penalty from God's books, and you did not say putting distance does remove the sin penalty from God's books. It is hard to make progress to a common understand unless the issue that divides is actually addressed. But your point is valid, that it was God who put the distance, and that distance was indeed sufficient for His purpose of providing a merciful covering to temporarily delay His punishment for the sin.

The sins and the punishment are not making their way back. It is not temporary. It is conditional. The condition is that, at the time written, Christ would come and make atonement for sin. But the sins were not temporarily removed. It goes against the text itself to say it is temporary.

I was addressing one of the reasons for the insufficiency of the Old Covenant, covered but not removed.

I can see that now. Is there anybody here still holding to the Old Covenant for removal of sin?
The covenant didn’t remove the sin. God removed them. Under the authority of which covenant are they removed?

Yes, I am talking about the sin penalty, God's action, not ours. The covering delayed holding the person accountable for the wrath he or she had stored up, but did not remove the penalty.

There is no debate that the old covenant cannot make anyone righteous. But Abraham was counted righteous (even before the law) and did not need to worry about his sins or punishment returning to him.

Here is what I said, "Ever wonder why the "atonement" of the Old Covenant did not make the person perfect, holy and blameless, but only provided a merciful covering that temporarily blocked punishment for sin?"

The answer for this question is I don’t think I ever did.
Can you show me where you get the idea that the punishment for sin is coming back from it’s “distance?”

 

[Van]

I can see that now. Is there anybody here still holding to the Old Covenant for removal of sin?
The covenant didn’t remove the sin. God removed them. Under the authority of which covenant are they removed?

These claims are simply an effort to obfuscate.

Hebrews 7:27 NASB
who has no daily need, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because He did this once for all time when He offered up Himself.

 

[Ben1445]

These claims are simply an effort to obfuscate.

Hebrews 7:27 NASB
who has no daily need, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because He did this once for all time when He offered up Himself.

I’m not trying to obfuscate. You have a persecution complex that makes you think that everyone is trying their best to get around you. If you just answer the questions directly instead of avoiding them you can answer the questions that your statements put in my mind and then make another statement or question that will draw the attention back to where you intended for it to be. It is a much better approach than addressing me (sound familiar?) and accusing me of intentionally sidetracking your thread. I don’t post if I don’t think it’s at least related to the thread.

I would appreciate it if you would answer my questions and if you feel like it is necessary, add a statement that explains why it is important to continue the conversation beyond what you feel buried it.

Every time you whine about the way someone responds, you don’t advance the discussion. You take it backwards several steps. Stay focused. Most likely you haven’t clearly made your point. Nobody is out to get you. Be generous and continue the conversation as if you are trying to explain it to someone who is genuinely trying to figure out what you mean, because I lose you far too often and I lose interest when you don’t like me asking you questions that you don’t answer.

 

[Van]

I’m not trying to obfuscate. You have a persecution complex that makes you think that everyone is trying their best to get around you. If you just answer the questions directly instead of avoiding them you can answer the questions that your statements put in my mind and then make another statement or question that will draw the attention back to where you intended for it to be. It is a much better approach than addressing me (sound familiar?) and accusing me of intentionally sidetracking your thread. I don’t post if I don’t think it’s at least related to the thread.

I would appreciate it if you would answer my questions and if you feel like it is necessary, add a statement that explains why it is important to continue the conversation beyond what you feel buried it.

Every time you whine about the way someone responds, you don’t advance the discussion. You take it backwards several steps. Stay focused. Most likely you haven’t clearly made your point. Nobody is out to get you. Be generous and continue the conversation as if you are trying to explain it to someone who is genuinely trying to figure out what you mean, because I lose you far too often and I lose interest when you don’t like me asking you questions that you don’t answer.

Totally off topic post addressing false claims of mind reading.

Question: "Can you show me where you get the idea that the punishment for sin is coming back from it’s “distance?”"

Answer:
Hebrews 7:27 NASB
who has no daily need, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because He did this once for all time when He offered up Himself.

Response or acknowledgement: "...you don’t like me asking you questions that you don’t answer."

 

[JD731]

In the OT the atonement was "made." Once every year because the blood of bulls and goats can never take away sins. In the NT the atonement is "received." A one time atonement that has already taken away sins of the world and is available for anyone and every one who will receive it by their own free will. This is not according to JD731, it is according to God, the Father of Jesus Christ, who sent him into the world for this very purpose. Take a look.

Hebrews 10:11
And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us:

25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world (age of law) hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

What else needs to be said? With that in mind read this.

Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

The contextual application of the Hebrews is of course to the Hebrews and this argument in the epistle to the Hebrews above is based on their long history under the Mosaic Law but logic says Christ, (and the grace of God has affirmed it), if Christ has taken away the sin of the whole world, then God can also save people besides the Hebrews if it pleases him. And it has; Look at this written to the gentile capitol of the world..


Rom 16:24 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:
27 To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.

Paul's gospel is "the gospel (good news, glad tidings) of God" that all men, not just Hebrews can be saved if they will trust Christ and his sacrificial atonement.

Acts 28:25 And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers,
26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:
27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.

Read Romans as if it is a continuation of Acts, because it is historically.

Ro 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, (separated from the other apostles) unto the gospel of God,

Ga 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles)
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

I do not know if I am exactly on topic but this is good teaching for the fertile mind.

 

[Ben1445]

Totally off topic post addressing false claims of mind reading.

Question: "Can you show me where you get the idea that the punishment for sin is coming back from it’s “distance?”"

Answer:
Hebrews 7:27 NASB
who has no daily need, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because He did this once for all time when He offered up Himself.

Do you think that they keep offering for the same sins??

Response or acknowledgement: "...you don’t like me asking you questions that you don’t answer."

Now answer this one that you keep ignoring. Since you answered that question already, I didn’t need you to answer it again.

Because you didn’t answer this question, I figured that it is what you call obfuscation and I actually want an answer. So here is the question that I assumed bothered you because you didn’t answer it.

Is there anybody here still holding to the Old Covenant for removal of sin?

 

[Van]

Good grief, first the false claim is that I do not answer his questions, plural, and now the false claim is I do not like to answer an unstated question. Pure drivel, folks.

JD731 cited Hebrews 10:11 which says the Old Covenant sacrifices can never take away sins. The Greek word (translated take away) was also used to translate, in the Septuagint, Genesis 41:42, where the King took off or removed his ring. In other words, under the Old Covenant God provided a merciful covering for their sins, but under the New Covenant, God provided total removal of the sin penalty of those who underwent the washing of regeneration.